Historic Republicans/Conservatives that have bailed due to Trump

[Aristotle]

It is fascinating to watch some of the most famous and respected conservative philosophical giants of the last few decades bailing on the Republican party entirely due to Trump.

The most stark example of this is George Will: Vote against the GOP this November

Amid the carnage of Republican misrule in Washington, there is this glimmer of good news: The family-shredding policy along the southern border, the most telegenic recent example of misrule, clarified something. Occurring less than 140 days before elections that can reshape Congress, the policy has given independents and temperate Republicans — these are probably expanding and contracting cohorts, respectively — fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which they should vote.

...

Consider the melancholy example of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), who wagered his dignity on the patently false proposition that it is possible to have sustained transactions with today’s president, this Vesuvius of mendacities, without being degraded.

...
Ryan and many other Republicans have become the president’s poodles, not because James Madison’s system has failed but because today’s abject careerists have failed to be worthy of it. As explained in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” Congressional Republicans (congressional Democrats are equally supine toward Democratic presidents) have no higher ambition than to placate this president. By leaving dormant the powers inherent in their institution, they vitiate the Constitution’s vital principle: the separation of powers.

...

In today’s GOP, which is the president’s plaything, he is the mainstream. So, to vote against his party’s cowering congressional caucuses is to affirm the nation’s honor while quarantining him.

After Trump tweeted one of his usual idiotic verbal farts, Will responded:

Will responded on "Fox News Sunday," saying: "He has an advantage on me, because he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters and I can't."

He said he'd joined the Republican Party in 1964, inspired by Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, a founder of the conservative movement and a key figure in the party then.

"I joined it because I was a conservative, and I leave it for the same reason: I'm a conservative," Will said.

Rekt.

---

Many others have left as well because of Trump:

Leading lights in the firmament of conservative conscience include the dean of conservative columnists, George Will, and former congressman and Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough.

The exodus from the GOP includes lifetime Republican and Washington Post columnist Max Boot, leading Republican campaign adviser Steve Schmidt and Peter Wehner, who served former Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Speaking of lifetime republican columnist Max Boot: I left the Republican Party. Now I want Democrats to take over.

Explaining my decision, I noted that Trumpkins “want to transform the GOP into a European-style nationalist party that opposes cuts in entitlement programs, believes in deportation of undocumented immigrants, white identity politics, protectionism and isolationism backed by hyper-macho threats to bomb the living daylights out of anyone who messes with us.” I still hoped then that traditional conservatives might eventually prevail, but, I wrote, “I can no longer support a party that doesn’t know what it stands for — and that in fact may stand for positions that I find repugnant.”

I am more convinced than ever that I made the right decision. The transformation I feared has taken place. Just look at the reaction to President Trump’s barbarous policy of taking children away from their parents as punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegally entering the country. While two-thirds of Americans disapproved of this state-sanctioned child abuse, forcing the president to back down, a majority of Republicans approved. If Trump announced he were going to spit-roast immigrant kids and eat them on national TV (apologies to Jonathan Swift), most Republicans probably would approve of that, too. The entire Republican platform can now be reduced to three words: whatever Trump says.

---

“Today I renounce my membership”: Longtime GOP strategist Steve Schmidt announces he’s leaving the party

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/...25231004004352

“29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life. Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.”

It is corrupt, indecent and immoral. With the exception of a few Governors like Baker, Hogan and Kasich it is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party’s greatest leaders. This child separation policy is connected to the worst abuses of Humanity in our history. It is connected by the same evil that separated families during slavery and dislocated tribes and broke up Native American families. It is immoral and must be repudiated. Our country is in trouble. Our politics are badly broken.

“The first step to a season of renewal in our land is the absolute and utter repudiation of Trump and his vile enablers in the 2018 election by electing Democratic majorities,” Schmidt tweeted. “I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda. I say it as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency. … This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party.”

[Aristotle]

It is funny to see how many of these people who denounced Trump, later circled back and heeled at his feet for little scraps of power.

Here is the list of Republicans who are not supporting Trump - Published 11:46 a.m. ET Oct. 8, 2016

[Sier]

George Will: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. He's kind of a fence straddler. I wouldn't call him a "Conservative" or a "Liberal" based on what I read of him. He's just kind of...meh.

Max Boot: Again - Don't let the door hit you on the way out. He's Pro Abortion and Pro Immigration. He thinks climate change (Based on Human Activity) is a thing. He never really was "Conservative", though I'm sure he was a registered Republican for one reason or another.

Steve Schmidt: "I don't think the Republican Party is Original, so I'm going Democrat" is pretty much what I get out of him. Look - If you don't like the representative of your party, I get it. But doing a 360 on every single one of your values due to that individual is odd, and it is wishy washy. He would garner far more respect in his logic to declare himself an independent from both parties. There is something to be said for someone who works WITHIN the party AGAINST those they disagree with, however. That takes some courage, and deserves some respect. Additionally - While the Republican party does currently possess a terrible level of corruption, the alternative Democratic Party is no better.

Peter Wehner : BINGO. "I don't endorse either Trump or Hillary, I endorse a third party." Sounds like someone has some courage. Good for him. "I don't like the figurehead, but I fully back my code of honor."

Here's the thing - A Political Party is more than fantasy football. There exists within a set of rules, morals, values, and a certain code of honor on either side, Republican and Democrat. If you so easily jump ship and state "Those rules and values are great and all, but I don't care for this dude. So they're all moot", you frankly lack all sense of honor. You can be in a political party and disagree with the president. I disagree with several of Trump's behaviors and actions, but I consider myself to be fanatically right-leaning.

If your math teacher botches a math problem, does that make all science a lie and by extension all school pointless? If your preacher sins, does that invalidate all spiritual belief? If your favorite football team's coach makes a bad play, does that mean all the players are all terrible at the sport? Ditching out on a party/activity/teaching just because a figurehead was ill-chosen is fickle, and I just can't get behind that. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and the figurehead has no LOGICAL bearing on it, granted it may most certainly have an EMOTIONAL bearing on it.

As Trump has literally pushed for every policy/change I voted him in for, I hope he continues pushing in the same direction. He DOES need to cool it with the Twitter, the porn stars, and the other silliness though. I regret that the Republican figurehead is Trump, but I do not regret the policies being pushed.

[Xywalan]

When I said that America is turning into a "stupid country" a lot of people were understandably upset but I don't want to be insulting it's just that that is starting to be the new reality. I don't think many or in fact any of the people quoted by Ari have left the conservative party. The conservative party together with a large percentage of its voters have moved into a "detached from reality, fringe, nutjob" corner. I mean, case in point:

He's Pro Abortion and Pro Immigration. He thinks climate change (Based on Human Activity) is a thing.

All three are reasonable, logical and the last one, i.e., the human-made climate change, is fucking physics (CO2 with it particular absorption lines contributes to the warming). However, the Republican party has moved into the area that "if biology disagrees with my Bible, then biology is wrong" and then "if physics disagrees with my donors' financial activities, then physics is wrong!" Outside US, you do not find these crazy combinations in mainstream conservative movements. Opposing efforts to reduce global warming is not a conservative thing (e.g., https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperPropo...c6a4040668.pdf).

And frankly, Trump has not done this. Trump is just riding a wave. The biggest accomplishments of Trump are that he was born white, rich, and then he was raised without any sense of wrong or right and no morality and during his life he has perfected the art of "confidently lying and appearing completely honest". Any fucker with these characteristics could ride the crazy wave created by the constant propaganda of the right-wing media. The propaganda together with great inequalities in wealth (which fosters more fundamentalism both religious and racial), religion (a great poison for mind and rationality), and racism (another great poison for rationality and decency) create the giant shit wave we are seeing.

If you think the Republican party will return to "normal" when Trump leaves, you are mistaken. It is true that when it comes to lying Trump has really raised the bar and maybe he will be the outliner and the no other politician manages to do what he has done but I won't put too much hope in that. The Republican party is lost and has taken more than half of the sanity of US political system with it. The big hope for US is that the younger generation seems to be much wiser by many measures so hopefully it is just the matter of waiting for the predominantly middle-aged white men to die off while praying that they don't fuck things up too much.

[Sier]

All three are reasonable, logical and the last one, i.e., the human-made climate change, is fucking physics (CO2 with it particular absorption lines contributes to the warming). However, the Republican party has moved into the area that "if biology disagrees with my Bible, then biology is wrong" and then "if physics disagrees with my donors' financial activities, then physics is wrong!" Outside US, you do not find these crazy combinations in mainstream conservative movements. Opposing efforts to reduce global warming is not a conservative thing (e.g., https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperPropo...c6a4040668.pdf).

I'm willing to debate the science of this with you in a separate forum. As I enjoy this argument and could literally go on for 100 pages, it would probably derail this current conversation to a significant degree. In fact, I implore you to open up a new topic on this subject, if you are truly confident that you can discuss the science behind the theory.

It's unwise to call the laws of nature a liar. It IS wise to question how you arrived at a point in an equation, what "assumptions" you made to get there, what evidences you "Ignored" to prove a theory. That is neither foolhardy, nor crazy.

[Sier]

If you think the Republican party will return to "normal" when Trump leaves, you are mistaken. It is true that when it comes to lying Trump has really raised the bar and maybe he will be the outliner and the no other politician manages to do what he has done but I won't put too much hope in that. The Republican party is lost and has taken more than half of the sanity of US political system with it. The big hope for US is that the younger generation seems to be much wiser by many measures so hopefully it is just the matter of waiting for the predominantly middle-aged white men to die off while praying that they don't fuck things up too much.

That's what they said 20 years ago. Then 20 years before that. Then 20 years before that.

Traditionally, the Conservative base is made up of a larger portion of older individuals. The Liberal base is made up of a larger portion of younger individuals.

We could have a separate debate on this point, but my logic on that is this: As people age, they get more experience in life, both good and bad. These experiences are where they base their reasoning. Some of these people acknowledge they are getting older, and turn to religion, which is often a huge embracer of "Conservative Values". There are also those who simply miss the "Good old days", but I like to discourage that rhetoric, as it is a great idea to change things up so long as morals are not compromised.

REALISTICALLY, here is what's going to happen: Trump might or might not get one more term. After the term is over, there might or might not be a President elected from the Democratic party, again. At which point, that president might or might not get another term, and we will be back in a Republican presidency. You have a consistent grappling between an older and younger generation that is going to be reoccurring. We can debate the reasons and sanity of it, but unless there is some sort of "Kill off the old people" initiative, I don't see the cycle changing.

I'm not quoting this for anything other than a list of presidents and their political affiliations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Check it out. Reoccurring cycle all the way back to Washington.

[Aristotle]

The conservative party together with a large percentage of its voters have moved into a "detached from reality, fringe, nutjob" corner.

Do not forget that Trump lost the popular vote, and the population of "Blue States" significantly outnumbers the population of "Red States."

Also, if people under 35 voted in the same percentage as people over 55, things would be completely different.

And if the Democrats had run even a slightly viable candidate, Trump would have been crushed. Biden would have obliterated him, for example. Instead they ran possibly the only person on the planet hated and distrusted enough to find a way to lose to Trump.

Outside US, you do not find these crazy combinations in mainstream conservative movements.

Sure you do.

In Muslim theocracies.

That's what we have now with the Religious Right Tea Party types who ignore science, facts, and reason in their power mad push to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy. They are just as bad as the Muslim theocrats and just as morally and intellectually defunct.

There are perfectly wonderful and rational religious people in the US who do wonderful things and contribute to society positively. I'm not painting with a broad brush here. But the fundamentalist Christian/Tea Party types are a scourge.

And frankly, Trump has not done this. Trump is just riding a wave.

Agree. He has no particular skill or talent at all. He is simply the benefactor of the psycho Tea Party. They see that people in general are wisely abandoning religion and this is their desperate gasp to fight against inevitability.

We're at the end of white Christian America. What will that mean?

The Number of Americans with No Religious Affiliation Is Rising


Americans Are Becoming Less Religious


Old, religious, nutbags still dominate politics because their voter turnout is disproportionate to their share of population. But as they die off, and as younger people actually vote, their impact on policy will diminish.

If you think the Republican party will return to "normal" when Trump leaves, you are mistaken.

Agree again. The party is doomed. It was taken over from within by the fundamentalist religious right Tea Party and destroyed. They abandoned conservatism entirely. Now they run up insane deficits, use government power to control people's lives, show outright disdain for women and minorities, and have suddenly become anti-immigration too. Republicans used to be the pro-immigration party because they believed so strongly in the American dream. Ronald Reagan signed the largest immigrant amnesty in US history, for example.

The Republican party is lost and has taken more than half of the sanity of US political system with it.

Again, don't give them more credit than they deserve. We are talking about ~30% of people, not the majority.

The reason they are fighting immigration so strongly is because they know the demographic shift happening in the US signals their ultimate death. Their pigheaded, racist, sexist outlook on life is not being numerically reinforced by younger people.

The only thing that could possibly save the Republican party would be an insanely charismatic leader riding in and transforming it ala the Reagan Revolution. But I don't see anyone on the horizon like that, and honestly such a person would probably find it easier to push the Democrafts slightly right than to fix the grossly rotten husk that is the current Republican party.

[Sier]

There are perfectly wonderful and rational religious people in the US who do wonderful things and contribute to society positively. I'm not painting with a broad brush here. But the fundamentalist Christian/Tea Party types are a scourge.

I appreciate this qualifier, thank you.

While I'm certain this isn't what you're stating, it's important to note that disagreeing with the "Evidences" behind evolution and global warming does not damn someone into the category of idiocy, as there is a mountain of evidence on both sides of the research. As I stated with Xywalan, happy to discuss these factors in a different thread (It would certainly derail this topic). I bring these two items up as these are generally the more trigger-able areas for both parties, and one of which has already been mentioned in a previous post.

It is also worth mentioning that in spite of holding a religious belief, even the most insane, murderous, fanatical Islamic zealot can also be extremely knowledgeable in matters of science. Intellect measures a capacity for knowledge, but a misplaced system of morals (Or lack thereof) can often make no distinction between the intelligent, and less intelligent.

Fundamentalist - a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.

I guess that makes me a fundamentalist.

[Xywalan]

Do not forget that Trump lost the popular vote, and the population of "Blue States" significantly outnumbers the population of "Red States."

True but still any Republican going against the "party of Trump" will lose the primary against another rabid pro-Trump Republican.

Also, if people under 35 voted in the same percentage as people over 55, things would be completely different.

Agreed and that is the biggest source of hope.

And if the Democrats had run even a slightly viable candidate, Trump would have been crushed. Biden would have obliterated him, for example. Instead they ran possibly the only person on the planet hated and distrusted enough to find a way to lose to Trump.

True but still it does not help that Trump crushed the Republican primaries. Furthermore, if Trump were someone less shady, more competent, and someone who could live a year without creating a political suicide scandal such as paying pornstars, saying dumbshit on Twitter, talking about his dick on the national TV, changing his mind a million times about core issues, etc. etc., he would have crushed Hillary and would have won the popular vote too. You forget how hard the guy tried to lose and how many times he fucked up. Remember Herman Cain? Sure, he was black so he did not have much of a future but he had his moment and at the tiniest slip he just lost it. Trump fucked up over and over and over again and still won. So basically my point is that the next corrupt, fascist, racist, xenophobe person to emerge could actually be someone competent.

In Muslim theocracies.

Okay, fair point. I take it back. My statement should probably be directed towards developed countries, even though some are getting really whacking political parties.

That's what we have now with the Religious Right Tea Party types who ignore science, facts, and reason in their power mad push to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy. They are just as bad as the Muslim theocrats and just as morally and intellectually defunct.

Well, there is one difference and that is the Republicans are paid to ignore science, specially regarding global warming and environmental protection policies. It's basically "The Tragedy of Commons" in action. The nature sitting pretty over there is not making the greedy assholes any money. Better bribe the Republicans so they allow the greedy assholes to fuck mother nature real good to make some fine buck. In the worse-case, everything goes to shits but even, they are already billionaires and they are not going to suffer much; it is far better to be a billionaire in a failing planet.

There are perfectly wonderful and rational religious people in the US who do wonderful things and contribute to society positively. I'm not painting with a broad brush here. But the fundamentalist Christian/Tea Party types are a scourge.

True, but that's because religion is basically a random loot box. It is true that there are perfectly good examples of religion motivating people to be truly good but in my opinion, a well-structured society with good safety nets and various other social programs works better and it is more reliable so we don't have to deal with the random loot box.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion



We're at the end of white Christian America. What will that mean?

The Number of Americans with No Religious Affiliation Is Rising


Americans Are Becoming Less Religious

Similar to the voting trends of the younger people, this is giving me hope. However, I sometimes fear that the trend could be temporary. As I note about, inequality tends to increase religiosity and America is moving towards inequality with every coming year.

Agree again. The party is doomed. It was taken over from within by the fundamentalist religious right Tea Party and destroyed. They abandoned conservatism entirely. Now they run up insane deficits, use government power to control people's lives, show outright disdain for women and minorities, and have suddenly become anti-immigration too. Republicans used to be the pro-immigration party because they believed so strongly in the American dream. Ronald Reagan signed the largest immigrant amnesty in US history, for example.

Yeah, Reagan would be considered a filthy libtard, I think he even dared to increase taxes a little bit! But about tea parties, to be honest, I'm a little bit sympathetic. The Republican party does not really represent the people so I sympathize a little bit with the pent up anger.

The reason they are fighting immigration so strongly is because they know the demographic shift happening in the US signals their ultimate death. Their pigheaded, racist, sexist outlook on life is not being numerically reinforced by younger people.

But unfortunately, as the general global experience shows, racism is a very big motivating factor.

The only thing that could possibly save the Republican party would be an insanely charismatic leader riding in and transforming it ala the Reagan Revolution. But I don't see anyone on the horizon like that, and honestly such a person would probably find it easier to push the Democrafts slightly right than to fix the grossly rotten husk that is the current Republican party.

To be honest, I would rather have Democrats move more towards left. The framing of many discussions in US is very much right-wing which puts liberals at a disadvantage and it does not help that there are plenty of Democrats who want to be Republican-lite.

[Aristotle]

Agreed and that is the biggest source of hope.

Absolutely. Demographics. The religious whackadoodles are dying off at long last.

And hopefully the racists along with them. Studies have shown that racism and fundamentalist belief in religion are very closely linked. That is unsurprising since intolerance is a key component of most organized religions - especially the fundamentalist varieties.

True but still it does not help that Trump crushed the Republican primaries.

Even that was basically luck on Trump's part. For some idiotic reason, the RNC allowed 13+ candidates (I don't remember the exact number) to participate in official debates.

The SANE VOTE was split in every primary.

Trump was carrying 30-35% and then Cruz, Rubio, Bush, and Kasich were splitting the other 75%.

Near the end when many had dropped out, Kasich almost caught him.

Even his primary win was due to arrogant hubris on the part of a major political party.

Both the RNC and the DNC underestimated him and we are all suffering because of it.

Well, there is one difference and that is the Republicans are paid to ignore science, specially regarding global warming and environmental protection policies.

Very true. There is good money in being bribed for industry tax breaks and dangerous deregulation.

Yeah, Reagan would be considered a filthy libtard

Indeed. It is insane and sad.

To be honest, I would rather have Democrats move more towards left.

So would I. I'd like our two parties to represent philosophical differences that don't disagree on what the problems are, but how best to solve them.

To oversimplify: one side thinking the government is generally the best solution, and the other side thinking the individual is the best solution.

Then they can compromise and debate and find a middle ground that works for everyone.

That's roughly how things worked up until about the mid 90s.